guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Divine Boon/Archive
I am not sure I follow this new part, and I am not sure that what I understand is worth a full page of text. Is there a way to describe this in a more clear less repetitive way? --Karlos 00:32, 29 Sep 2005 (EST) I understand your concerns, it really became a bit a lot of text. Its purpose should be to show in which way to use Divine Boon a way most effective concerning energy usage, substantiated with some calculated numbers which also could be used to compare with other skills. I will remove it and put it back revised in a while. --Whisp 03:50, 29 Sep 2005 (EST) :I feel some energy related tables for Divine Boon are a good thing, I was always wondering myself wheter it does pay of or not. However I dont understand the "activate Divine Boon for 30 seconds part". The only difference should be the activation cost right? --Xeeron 03:53, 29 Sep 2005 (EST) ::The longer you activate it, the lower the impact of the base energy cost used to cast Divine Boon. I.e. If you only plan to use Divine Boon for 10 seconds and put it off afterwards to save upkeep, the 5 energy used to cast Divine Boon had a high impact but if you plan to keep Divine Boon up for 2 minutes this 5 energy used to cast it can be disregarded. I will try to express all that more clear, since english is not my native language it's sometimes a bit difficult. Those who straight out my contributions please be mild with me ;). --Whisp 04:20, 29 Sep 2005 (EST) :::I think one table (disregarding activation cost) might be enough. Most people will use Divine Boon for a whole fight, thus making activation cost irrelevant. And if you use it just to counter some spikes, energy efficienty is not the most relevant issue eiter. Maybe you should compare the bonus health derived from running Divine Boon with the health that you would get by not running divine boon and casting normal healing spells (eg orison) instead. --Xeeron 05:37, 29 Sep 2005 (EST) :::: Honestly i never tried Divine Boon activating only for a short period. But i thought it might be a tactical option to just activate Divine Boon for a short time to antagonize a upcoming wave of damage and deactivating it afterwards to be ready with a full energy pool for the next wave. In that case it might be useful to compare energy efficiency with other spells, to go for the favorite spell. But possibly you are right and this is to much detail for a little benefit, hard to judging for me. --Whisp 07:06, 29 Sep 2005 (EST) :Maybe something like this? --Rezyk 05:41, 29 Sep 2005 (EST) That looks good =) --Xeeron 05:57, 29 Sep 2005 (EST) Yes, that looks really good. --Whisp 07:06, 29 Sep 2005 (EST) ---- Does anyone prefer the current version over the previous? --Fyren 06:33, 17 October 2005 (EST) :You mean after Olljism or somethign else? Your comment seems to precede his edit. --Karlos 02:01, 18 October 2005 (EST) ::Not the first one. --Fyren 02:18, 18 October 2005 (EST) :::As with all things Ollj, if someone can transofrm this into usefull stuff, great. If not, give it a few days then take it out. It is time for me to Zzzz so I can't even begin to understand what he is trying to say. :( --Karlos 02:41, 18 October 2005 (EST) ---- 2 things: *Does anyone really understand that graph? What level of Divine Boon does it represent? What level healing/prot prayers? How often are you casting? Etc, etc. *Is the "Third Attempt" useful to anyone? Seems like a mass of numbers to me.--Kiiron 03:11, 24 October 2005 (EST) :Let me add my voice to the Conclave of the Confused... The last line in the third attempt is priceless: "Dive Boon is useful if you can cast spells faster than you can cast spells" I was struggling with the paragraph trying to absorb it all in when that came along and completely destroyied all I had thought I understood. :) --Karlos 15:57, 24 October 2005 (EST) ---- To bring this up again, I think all the analysis after Rezyk's table should be removed. --Fyren 15:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC) :If that means the entirity of "Third Attempt", I agree. -PanSola 18:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC) ::The same table as above, so it's more than just that. --Fyren 18:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC) :::Hmm, still agree. Though it's not clear to me if the "5 energy spent" include the +2 energy cost or not. And without some sample comparison of other health per energy, the info alone is semi-contextless. -PanSola 18:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC) Excised. Also made a formatting change involving the table, dunno if it'll look right for low resolutions. --Fyren 11:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)